UA Codes and Judicial Committee

CJC Meeting 2/17/09 Present: Gary Stewart, Bob Kay, Kade Laden, Anna Ferry, Kathleen Rourke, Nighthawk Evensen, Mary Beth Grant, Kathy Zoner, Kevin Clermont, Rachel Dorfman-Tandlich

1. Approval of Minutes
   • Approved
2. Update from UA
   • Laden: The Feb 11th meeting was cancelled, the gorge issue will be brought up at the next meeting.
3. Review Judicial Selection Process
4. Suggestions for Changes to the Code from JA
   • Scrivener’s Errors
     • Kevin Clermont will review Mary Beth’s suggestions and bring them back at the next meeting.
   • Clarify role of non-JCC advisors at non-hearing meetings
     • Grant: we would like students to speak for themselves. When suspension or explusion are involved, anyone, including an attorney can come speak for the student, but when those things aren’t involved, only a JCC or the student can speak for them at a hearing. What happens in the meetings?
     • Clermont: my interpretation was that at hearings we don’t want the attorney to be “Perry Mason”. This language says what we meant it to say.
     • Grant: Lets add that the attorney shouldn’t play “Perry Mason” at the meetings either.
     • Rourke: Doesn’t that defeat the purpose of bringing someone with you?
     • Grant: No, because it is insuring fair process, someone is there to give advice, although the student should speak for themselves.
     • Rourke: no, but if I have been victimized in some way, I would want someone to speak for me.
     • Kay: it is somehow artificial to say that you can’t have someone else participate in that meeting.
   • Clarify endangerment of persons
     • Grant: when we changed the code, we pulled in things that were in the footnotes. Many people think that “endangerment” is limited to those things that are listed. My suggestion is that we add things to the list.
     • Rourke: we try to stay away from listing because then it seems limited.
     • Zoner: lets write “included but not limited to”
     • Grant: I would suggest making the list longer
     • Clemont: I am ok with Mary Beth’s changes
     • Evensen: lets accept them but also include Kathy’s changes of “included but not limited to”
     • Rourke: put it to a vote
     • Vote is unanimous to accept changes, but including the phrase “included but not limited to”
   • Clarifly that violation of probation is prohibited
     • Grant: I would like to put this in Title III
     • Clermont: Title III, Article II, A3L “to violate the terms of a probation imposed under this code, during the probationary period”
     • Rourke: Vote
     • Vote is unanimous
   • Change terminology for “Temporary Protection Directive” to “No Contact Directive”
     • Grant: Temporary protection directive is often confused with temporary order of protection, which has very specific legal meanings. This would just make things easier to understand.
     • Zoner: also, it is friendlier language, will make it easier for students to accept
     • Clermont: lets change it to No-Contact (adding hyphen)
     • Rourke: lets vote
     • Vote is unanimous
   • Prohibit Discrimination, as described in Policy 6.4
     • Grant: in our policy, discrimination and harassment are different. Discrimination is not really covered by 6.4, if it is a student or student organization saying that.
     • Rourke: Do we just want to say “to harass another person” and leave it without a policy reference?
     • Clermont: no, we want harassment to be defined (as it is in 6.4)
     • Grant: 6.4 applies to faculty, staff members, and students working as TAs, but this would make discrimination prohibited for everybody
     • Vote is unanimous to accept as written
   • Prohibit Retaliation
     • Grant: this has come up from several complaintants
     • Dorfman-Tandlich: why would these acts not already be covered under the code?
     • Rourke: this feels redundant
     • Evensen: well, if it makes a witness feel more comforted, I support it
     • Rourke: I don’t feel comfortable adding this
     • Zoner: if I think of a hypothetical situation I will e-mail it
     • Vote: 2 yes, 1 abstention, 4 nos
   • Require witnesses to participate in disciplinary system
     • Grant: I don’t like the idea of making our system more legalistic by having anything that looks like subpoena power. Hypothetical: current case where no one is willing to testify. This doesn’t allow the hearing board to evaluate all the information
     • Rourke: but what if someone is traumatized by what they witnessed?
     • Grant: it seems that that is not what is happening, they just don’t want to participate�
     • Laden: outside Cornell are witnesses required to testify?
     • Clermont: yes, if they are subpoenad.
     • Rourke: can you re-write it so there are protections for certain people?
     • Laden: yes, this seems overly strong
     • Clermont: you can say, “to refuse, without substantial reasons�”
     • Ferry: but then you have to define substantial
     • Clermont: no the definition will come through adjudication
     • Rourke: lets table this until next time. Put in some language who protect people who have a legitimate time for not wanting to participate.
     • Grant: last year, we removed from the code the ability to bring forward testimony of witnesses if they are scared.
     • Laden: could they just write an affidavit?
     • Grant: no, we discussed that last year, the accused need to have the right to face their accusers.
     • Rourke: make sure that UA realizes that as they accept certain changes, the numbers to all of these things will change.
5. New business?
   • Grant: we need volunteers to help select the 5 people who will make up the hearing board (selection from the pool). I was looking for input from this committee. It probably wont require a code change. Is there a different system that we should use where all we are talking about is how many hours of community service people are getting?
6. Next meeting
   • March 10th, 4PM